Search - considered

The Minister only granted the ITC calculated based on a deemed cost of $30,000 because he considered it a passenger vehicle that did not benefit from the exclusion set out in the Income Tax Act (ITA) for vehicles acquired for the operation of a car sale or rental business ... Jenner be considered as having carried on a vehicle or recreational vehicle rental or lease business during the relevant period?   ... Jenner earned should be considered as business income or as property income. ...

Regrettably there is no such written agreement. [9]      The Appellant testified that as soon as the court proceedings leading to the Restraining Order were completed in 2003, he issued post-dated cheques to his wife to cover the amounts which were considered adequate to support his wife and his children. ... There is some jurisprudence that indicates that endorsed cheques considered alone cannot form the basis of or be a written agreement as contemplated by the Act. ... She stated that the Appellant and she never considered it necessary to have a written agreement because the Appellant voluntarily agreed to make the payments which they both considered were at the very least satisfactory. ...

Gagnon is considered Laura-Véronique's mother even though she is not her biological mother. ...   [13]     Regulation 6301 contemplates four different situations in which the mother or an eligible individual declares in writing to the Minister that the father must be considered the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of each of the qualified dependants ... Factors that are to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing of a child are set out in Regulation 6302 of the Regulations ...

In order to be considered an allowance, a payment must meet three conditions. ... As for the restaurant costs, they are not considered a benefit, since the employee does not have access to his own cooking for nourishment.    The fact that he can save the cost of the food he would have eaten at home is rather minimal in relation to the restaurant costs, and is ignored for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Act. [21]     In sum, while the costs associated with an individual's lodging would normally be considered a personal expense, I find that the reimbursement does not constitute a benefit for the workers under the circumstances of this case. ...

Since both parents are claiming the child tax credit benefit for the period in issue, no presumptions are applicable and the factors set forth in section 6302 of the Regulations must be considered. ...   [7]    As for the appellant, the evidence revealed that for part of 2000, she had a place of her own but still considered the family residence as home. ... In light of the evidence and the factors to be considered, I find that the Minister’s determination in favour of the father was reasonable and that the appellant’s evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that, during the period at issue, she was the parent who primarily fulfilled the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the two children.  ...

He said he would be very sad if maple products were no longer considered farm products. ... We would also emphasize that although the reasonable expectation of profit is a factor to be considered at this stage, it is not the only factor, nor is it conclusive. ... The appellant explained that the building which the auditor considered a personal cottage was not one, and that it was used by the people who collected the maple sap and made maple products. ...

  [2]    The Appellant admitted all the Minister’s assumptions of fact considered when the determination under appeal was established and approved. ... I will reproduce these assumptions here:   [translation] By establishing and approving the new CCTB determination of September 19, 2003, for the 2000 base year, the Minister considered the same assumptions of fact:   (a)     The Appellant and Jean-Guy Trépanier (hereinafter, the “former spouse”) lived together from 1991 to 1995; (b)    The Appellant and the former spouse had a child … born on May 20, 1993 (hereinafter the “child”); (c)     In accordance with a judgment rendered April 16, 1999, by the Honourable Justice Gérard Turmel, J.C.S., of the Superior Court of Quebec, legal custody was granted to the Appellant; (d)    In accordance with an order given May 12, 2000, by the Honourable Justice Andrée Ruffo, the child was entrusted to the former spouse; (e)     As of June 2000, the Minister considered the former spouse to be the parent who took main responsibility for the care and education of the child; (f)      On August 31, 2001, the Honourable Justice Pierre G. ... [7]    The relevant legal provisions in this case are:   122.6 Definitions   "eligible individual" in respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time (a) resides with the qualified dependant, (b) is the parent of the qualified dependant who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant, (c) is resident in Canada or, where the person is the cohabiting spouse or common-law partner of a person who is deemed under subsection 250(1) to be resident in Canada throughout the taxation year that includes that time, was resident in Canada in any preceding taxation year, (d) is not described in paragraph 149(1)(a) or 149(1)(b), and (e) is, or whose cohabiting spouse or common-law partner is, a Canadian citizen or a person who   …   and for the purpose of this definition,   …   (h) prescribed factors shall be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing ...

  [4]      The Appellant therefore considered her employment to have terminated only on December 20, 2002, and the 225 hours thus attributed had to be counted as insurable hours and that the earnings for these 225 hours ($2,700) had to be part of the insurable earnings ... He argued, however, that because the Appellant did not actually render any services during the 225 hours in question, she is not considered to have worked in insurable employment over this period within the terms of sections 9.1, 9.2 and 10.2 of the Employment Insurance Regulations. ...   [6]      The applicable regulatory provisions are as follows:   Employment Insurance Regulations             9.1  Where a person's earnings are paid on an hourly basis, the person is considered to have worked in insurable employment for the number of hours that the person actually worked and for which the person was remunerated.             9.2    Subject to section 10, where a person's earnings or a portion of a person's earnings for a period of insurable employment remains unpaid for the reasons described in subsection 2(2) of the Insurable Earnings and Collection of Premiums Regulations, the person is deemed to have worked in insurable employment for the number of hours that the person actually worked in the period, whether or not the person was remunerated.   10.1   (1) Where an insured person is remunerated by the employer for a period of paid leave, the person is deemed to have worked in insurable employment for the number of hours that the person would normally have worked and for which the person would normally have been remunerated during that period. (2) Where an insured person is remunerated by the employer for a period of leave in the form of a lump sum payment calculated without regard to the length of the period of leave, the person is deemed to have worked in insurable employment for the lesser of (a) the number of hours that the person would normally have worked and for which the person would normally have been remunerated during the period, and (b) the number of hours obtained by dividing the lump sum amount by the normal hourly rate of pay. (3) Where an insured person is remunerated by the employer for a non-working day and (a) works on that day, the person is deemed to have worked in insurable employment for the greater of the number of hours that the person actually worked and the number of hours that the person would normally have worked on that day; and (b) does not work on that day, the person is deemed to have worked in insurable employment for the number of hours that the person would normally have worked on that day.                      10.2   For the purposes of sections 9.1, 10, 10.01, 10.1 and 22, (a) an hour of work performed in insurable employment is considered to be a single hour of insurable employment, even if the hour is remunerated at an overtime rate of pay; and (b) if the addition of hours of insurable employment falling between the first day and the last day worked in a given period of employment results in a total number of hours that contains a fraction of an hour, the fraction shall be counted as a whole hour.                 ...

The following criteria should be considered: the profit and loss experience in past years, the taxpayer's training, the taxpayer's intended course of action, the capability of the venture as capitalized to show a profit after charging capital cost allowance. ... It is considered that a literary work such as a novel, poem, short story or any non-fictional prose composition that is written for general sale or syndicated distribution would normally have a greater profit potential than a work undertaken for restricted distribution. 6.          ... All relevant criteria are considered together in making a determination and the taxpayer's failure to meet any one particular factor will not in itself preclude the taxpayer's artistic or literary activities from qualifying as a business. 7. ...

Consent of opposing counsel is certainly a factor to be considered in dealing with an adjournment application, but it is by no means determinative of the issue. [1] Among the other factors that I considered are the facts that counsel had not actually been retained, according to his letter, that the trial date had been fixed almost six months previous, that there had been no intervening event that had impeded the Appellant from preparing and presenting his case, and that the Appellant had waited until the afternoon before the trial date to first raise the question of retaining counsel and seeking an adjournment. ... This ground of appeal has no merit. [10]          The other two issues, as expressed by the Notice of Appeal, may be considered together, as they both require a consideration of the status of the Strathearn Road house from time to time. ... The Minister's computation of the amounts of these is correct. [11]          The Appellant seems to have assumed that because he wanted to sell the house from the time he closed the purchase in 1989 until he was able to sell it in 1993, it must be considered inventory in his hands during that period. ...